TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

But Szakaly(NADA Chief Economist) said that potential industry growth beyond that resurgence(now til 2018) will be crimped because of product decisions that will be forced to meet regulations(CAFE 54.5 MPG)
“As retailers, we always welcome competition(ROTFLMAO) and we welcome a wide variety of vehicles,” he said. “But we also want to make sure that consumers have choice and they’re able buy the car they want. It’s a major issue looking out beyond 2018.”
“It’s very hard to see a successful way that either the industry can avoid significant losses, or we cannot see a major impact on sales due to regulation."
“Unless gasoline prices rise significantly, or we see consumers becoming irrational and everyone buying an electric car, it’s tough to think of consumers willing to pay $3,000 to $7,000 more for the exact same car, just because someone in Washington, D.C., or California says they need to buy it.”

I have never crunched numbers but I have always believed that the combination of lowering cost of BEVs due to the GF plus the price increases due to cost associated with meeting new CAFE fuel standards which rise to 54.5 MPG by 2025 would mean the the cost of BEV powertrain would drop below the price of a comprable ICE powertrain.

The MSRP of a Model S ICE competitor should rise by ~$7k and the price of Model 3 ICE competitor should rise ~$5k.

But Szakaly(NADA Chief Economist) said that potential industry growth beyond that resurgence(now til 2018) will be crimped because of product decisions that will be forced to meet regulations(CAFE 54.5 MPG)
“As retailers, we always welcome competition(ROTFLMAO) and we welcome a wide variety of vehicles,” he said. “But we also want to make sure that consumers have choice and they’re able buy the car they want. It’s a major issue looking out beyond 2018.”
“It’s very hard to see a successful way that either the industry can avoid significant losses, or we cannot see a major impact on sales due to regulation."
“Unless gasoline prices rise significantly, or we see consumers becoming irrational and everyone buying an electric car, it’s tough to think of consumers willing to pay $3,000 to $7,000 more for the exact same car, just because someone in Washington, D.C., or California says they need to buy it.”

I have never crunched numbers but I have always believed that the combination of lowering cost of BEVs due to the GF plus the price increases due to cost associated with meeting new CAFE fuel standards which rise to 54.5 MPG by 2025 would mean the the cost of BEV powertrain would drop below the price of a comprable ICE powertrain.

The MSRP of a Model S ICE competitor should rise by ~$7k and the price of Model 3 ICE competitor should rise ~$5k.

Click to expand...

Funny that "consumers becoming irrational" is equated with buying an electric car. These people will do anything, say anything, to deny that the future is here.

Not surprised at his myopic forecast. On my recent road trip along CA-1, we kept checking GasBuddy for the cheapest prices around. Most of them were at Costco. And on most occasions, there were lines several cars deep. Not that I minded a 10-15 minute wait to save a few bucks. But it made me think that as gas prices inevitably go up, that it will become more and more competitive and crowded at low-cost gas retailers. I don't think it will be ultimately be mandates coming out of D.C. or Sacramento that get people into EVs. It will be practical, real-world ranges (100+ mpg), reasonable price points, and the ability to charge for about 1/5 the price of filling up.

Much or all of the price increase will be recaptured by the consumer in the form of lower fuel costs, which is why you don't hear much from consumer groups against CAFE. But higher sticker prices make it harder for auto dealers to upsell all their bells and whistles, as buyers are already seeing a big number and are fairly myopic about the potential for gasoline cost savings (as we all know from the issues of communicating the lower total cost of ownership of EVs). So, the CAFE-related price increase hits dealers in the pocketbook. Poor dears.

I have never crunched numbers but I have always believed that the combination of lowering cost of BEVs due to the GF plus the price increases due to cost associated with meeting new CAFE fuel standards which rise to 54.5 MPG by 2025 would mean the the cost of BEV powertrain would drop below the price of a comprable ICE powertrain.

The MSRP of a Model S ICE competitor should rise by ~$7k and the price of Model 3 ICE competitor should rise ~$5k.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right in that conclusion. Here are a few related data points:

This is from the latest ER conference call:

Rod A. Lache is from Deutsche Bank.

<Q - Rod A. Lache>: If you took a step back and thought about the trajectory for this in the next 10 years rather than the next three years, what do you see on the horizon? Is there a case for $100 per kilowatt hour pack in 10 years?

<A - Elon R. Musk>: I would be disappointed if it took us 10 years to get to $100 kilowatt hour pack.

<Q - Rod A. Lache>: So basically, you're saying that within the next - within that timeframe, you would expect electric vehicles to reach cost parity and maybe even improve upon the cost of an internal combustion vehicle?

This is from the subsequent research report written by him:
Tesla believes battery pack costs can fall below $100/kWh in “much less than 10 yrs”. If true, such a development could have broad implications for Tesla and for the broader Auto Industry, as it would imply an outright cost advantage for Tesla’s EV’s vs. internal combustion alternatives. We note that the conventional internal combustion powertrain typically costs OEMs >$5,000 per vehicle. And this cost is expected to double over the next 10-years (per the National Academy of Sciences, U.S fuel economy targets will add $5,000 in cost). For comparison, Tesla’s 200 mile range Model 3 is expected to have a 48 kWH battery pack; a $4800 cost at $100/kWh. Even if we add in the current cost of inverters, e motors, and other EV specific equipment, the cost of an EV Powertrain should be well below $5500," he added.

Much or all of the price increase will be recaptured by the consumer in the form of lower fuel costs, which is why you don't hear much from consumer groups against CAFE. But higher sticker prices make it harder for auto dealers to upsell all their bells and whistles, as buyers are already seeing a big number and are fairly myopic about the potential for gasoline cost savings (as we all know from the issues of communicating the lower total cost of ownership of EVs). So, the CAFE-related price increase hits dealers in the pocketbook. Poor dears.

Click to expand...

CAFE does save consumers money but for the first decade or two after an increase like this that almost doubles a large part of the savings is due to the fact that consumers ending up buying smaller cars with smaller less powerful engines.

CAFE was introduced in 1975 and it took til the early 90's for cars to reach the average size and power they were before 1975.

By 2025 most of the legacy automakers will be selling ICE golf carts that get 54.5 MPG and Tesla will be selling bigger more powerful cars that get over 100 MPGe on average.

@RobStark, keep in mind that the new CAFE standard is not a single number, but a mathematical function that depends on the physical footprint of the vehicle. So, it's not obviously harder to hit the target with a big car than with a smaller one.

Why does CAFE have an accent on the E in that article? It's not a word, it's an acronym (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). Sloppy copy editing.

CAFE is kind of a boondoggle anyway. The straightforward way for the government to drive improved fuel economy would be to just straight up increase taxes on fuel (ideally as part of a carbon tax). Congress does CAFE instead because it allows them to pretend they're imposing the cost on manufacturers instead of consumers. As if manufacturers aren't just passing on the cost.

But yes, his comment about electric cars is just childish and dumb. Obviously if the TCO of an electric car is lower then buying one is entirely rational. Glad to see there are some comments on the article calling him out on it.

No, the EU approach and the CAFE approach are significantly different, even if the final targets are similar.

EU approach encourages substitution of big cars with smaller cars as an alternative to technological improvement.
The entire Smart marque exists to balance the larger Mercedes vehicles for the targets
if the EU approach was applied to USA, it would result in a diversion from improving the efficiency of Ford F-series, to subsiding the sales of a Fiesta class vehicle.
The end results, a bifurcation in the market with more small cars and more pickup trucks. This has obvious real world safety implications.

CAFE is at its core, intended to get carmakers to offer vehicles as if there was a higher gas price, without actually having a higher gas price. Ie to raise the technology basis of the vehicles, instead of reducing the scope (size) of the vehicle. The cost neutral was of doing this is to uptech the engine/gearbox, while down cylinder count of the engine. Ie substitute V6 instead of V8, substitute I4 instead of V6 , substitute CVT instead of auto trans. etc.

<Q - Rod A. Lache>: If you took a step back and thought about the trajectory for this in the next 10 years rather than the next three years, what do you see on the horizon? Is there a case for $100 per kilowatt hour pack in 10 years?

<A - Elon R. Musk>: I would be disappointed if it took us 10 years to get to $100 kilowatt hour pack.

<Q - Rod A. Lache>: So basically, you're saying that within the next - within that timeframe, you would expect electric vehicles to reach cost parity and maybe even improve upon the cost of an internal combustion vehicle?

CAFE does save consumers money but for the first decade or two after an increase like this that almost doubles a large part of the savings is due to the fact that consumers ending up buying smaller cars with smaller less powerful engines.

CAFE was introduced in 1975 and it took til the early 90's for cars to reach the average size and power they were before 1975.

By 2025 most of the legacy automakers will be selling ICE golf carts that get 54.5 MPG and Tesla will be selling bigger more powerful cars that get over 100 MPGe on average.

Click to expand...

The target's not that hard. The $7k's on some of the larger vehicles, but the fact that quite a few hybrids already meet the target shows that for cars it shouldn't need $7k, especially since we can expect a downward trajectory on the price of the batteries and power electronics.

Even if we add in the current cost of inverters, e motors, and other EV specific equipment, the cost of an EV Powertrain should be well below $5500," he added.

-------So excluding the battery pack, the cost for rest of an EV Powertrain(inverters+Motor+others) is less than (5500-4800)=$700??? What's the cost for the power train except the battery pack in a Model S 85?

But yes, his comment about electric cars is just childish and dumb. Obviously if the TCO of an electric car is lower then buying one is entirely rational. Glad to see there are some comments on the article calling him out on it.

Click to expand...

It's such obvious FUD that it calls into question the entire premise of his argument. How much will it really cost to meet the targets? Evidence?

It's total ******** to argue that there are only 2 variables in the equation: fuel economy versus price.

If you look at the data it is pretty obvious that over the last 30 years vehicles have vastly increased in mass and power, while fuel economy has stagnated.
In 1983 the average vehicle was 3257 pounds, had 107 horsepower and got 21 miles per gallon.
In 2013 the average vehicle was 4041 pounds, had 230 horsepower and got 24 miles per gallon.

Move the mass and/or power sliders, and you can drastically improve fuel economy without touching the price slider.

The target's not that hard. The $7k's on some of the larger vehicles, but the fact that quite a few hybrids already meet the target shows that for cars it shouldn't need $7k, especially since we can expect a downward trajectory on the price of the batteries and power electronics.

Click to expand...

He is talking about keeping cars with the same size and performance. Not making every car for sale a Prius. Like large cars with big V8s. Look at the Lexus LS hybrid. 20 MPG combined. Tough to get that to any where near 54 MPG. And keep the same performance.

No, the EU approach and the CAFE approach are significantly different, even if the final targets are similar.

EU approach encourages substitution of big cars with smaller cars as an alternative to technological improvement.
The entire Smart marque exists to balance the larger Mercedes vehicles for the targets
if the EU approach was applied to USA, it would result in a diversion from improving the efficiency of Ford F-series, to subsiding the sales of a Fiesta class vehicle.
The end results, a bifurcation in the market with more small cars and more pickup trucks. This has obvious real world safety implications.

CAFE is at its core, intended to get carmakers to offer vehicles as if there was a higher gas price, without actually having a higher gas price. Ie to raise the technology basis of the vehicles, instead of reducing the scope (size) of the vehicle. The cost neutral was of doing this is to uptech the engine/gearbox, while down cylinder count of the engine. Ie substitute V6 instead of V8, substitute I4 instead of V6 , substitute CVT instead of auto trans. etc.

Cars are responsible for around 12% of total EU emissions of carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]), the main greenhouse gas.

European Union legislation sets mandatory emission reduction targets for new cars. This legislation is the cornerstone of the EU's strategy to improve the fuel economy of cars sold on the European market. The law is similar to that covering new vans.The fleet average to be achieved by all new cars is 130 grams of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] per kilometre (g/km) by 2015 – with the target phased in from 2012 - and 95g/km by 2021, phased in from 2020.The 2015 and 2021 targets represent reductions of 18% and 40% respectively compared with the 2007 fleet average of 158.7g/km.In terms of fuel consumption, the 2015 target is approximately equivalent to 5.6 litres per 100 km (l/100 km) of petrol or 4.9 l/100 km of diesel. The 2021 target equates to approximately 4.1 l/100 km of petrol or 3.6 l/100 km of diesel.Key elements of the Cars Regulation are as follows:

Limit value curve

Emission limits are set according to the mass of vehicle, using a limit value curve. The curve is set in such a way that a fleet average of 130 grams of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] per kilometre is achieved by 2015 and 95 grams of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] per km by 2021. The limit value curve means that heavier cars are allowed higher emissions than lighter cars while preserving the overall fleet average. Only the fleet average is regulated, so manufacturers are still able to make vehicles with emissions above the limit value curve provided these are balanced by vehicles below the curve.

Phasing-in of requirements

The EU fleet average target of 130g/km will be phased in between 2012 and 2015. In 2012, an average of 65% of each manufacturer's newly registered cars must comply with the limit value curve set by the legislation. This will rise to 75% in 2013, 80% in 2014, and 100% from 2015 onwards. A shorter phase-in period will apply to the target of 95g/km: 95% of each manufacturer's new cars will have to comply with the limit value curve in 2020, increasing to 100% in 2021.

Penalty payments for excess emissions

If the average CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions of a manufacturer's fleet exceed its limit value in any year from 2012, the manufacturer has to pay an excess emissions premium for each car registered. This premium amounts to €5 for the first g/km of exceedance, €15 for the second g/km, €25 for the third g/km, and €95 for each subsequent g/km. From 2019, the cost will be €95 from the first gram of exceedance onwards.

Eco-innovations

Under the test procedure used for vehicle type approval, certain innovative technologies cannot demonstrate their CO[SUB]2[/SUB]-reducing effects when being type approved. Manufacturers can be granted emission credits equivalent to a maximum emissions saving of 7g/km per year for their fleet if they equip vehicles with innovative technologies, based on independently verified data. These eco-innovation credits will be maintained for the 2021 target.

Super credits

The cars Regulation gives manufacturers additional incentives to produce vehicles with extremely low emissions (below 50g/km). Each low-emitting car will be counted as 3.5 vehicles in 2012 and 2013, 2.5 in 2014, 1.5 vehicles in 2015 and then 1 vehicle from 2016 to 2019. Super-credits will also apply in the second stage of emission reductions, from 2020 to 2023. Each low-emitting car will be counted as 2 vehicles in 2020, 1.67 in 2021, 1.33 in 2022 and 1 from 2023. For this second step there will be a cap on the scheme’s contribution to the target of 7.5g/km per manufacturer over the three years. This approach will help manufacturers further reduce the average emissions of their new car fleet.

Move the mass and/or power sliders, and you can drastically improve fuel economy without touching the price slider.

Click to expand...

Yes, you get smaller cars and/or less powerful cars and/or less safety equipment. The other options is aluminum,carbon fiber or other low weight materials and that most certainly touches the price slider.

Consumers don't want those options. They want big powerful cars with lots of safety equipment and lots of power equipment like power/heated/cooled seats with ear drum blowing infotainment systems. That is what NADA Chief Economist is arguing. Most consumers don't want a Prius stripper.

You're right RobStark and I was wrong. It seemed that EU added a weight based limit value curve in 2012 which approximates CAFE's footprint curve.

My country has neither, but higher gas prices and state level annual rego fees (that increase with cylinder count) have delivered a marked increase in fuel economy (even if cabin space has stayed fairly constant). Only problem is Ford/ GM and Toyota are closing manufacturing here, and the industry will cease to exist in a few years.

Consumers don't want those options. They want big powerful cars with lots of safety equipment and lots of power equipment like power/heated/cooled seats with ear drum blowing infotainment systems. That is what NADA Chief Economist is arguing. Most consumers don't want a Prius stripper.

And outside the green consumer he is right.

Click to expand...

According to the manufacturers consumers didn't want seat belts, airbags, or anti-lock brakes. They didn't want crash testing, safety glass, or bumpers.
I don't think anyone should listen to them about what consumers want.

I also think you are wrong about consumers. Most people buy the Prius because it saves them money on gas, not because it is green.
Lots of people who are not green will put fuel economy into the equation when they buy, they need better choices. If gas was properly priced, many many more would factor it, and factor it much higher.

Meta

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.